Generalized Process Flow

While many of the processes employed are standard information sciences practices they are employed in a unique and uniquely focused manner which illuminates systemically related abstractions that are required to be immersed in a framework with affinity to the actual real unified Universe and this requirement makes their use in Patent Pending 16405134 Elegant Reasonism ‘unique’. Elegant Reasonism integrates disciplines from many areas of science, business, industry, R&D, and philosophy to accomplish what it does. This approach not only helps illuminate what has never been realized in the past, it helps to explain why in the past we could not see what was right in front of us all. Civilization has been in essence blinded by our own physiology and the success of our ‘logical correctness’.

The Generalized Elegant Reasonism Process Flow chart frames out the discussion and activities left to right. This chart is busy and requires multiple disciplines in order to flesh out completely and it is not considered “comprehensive”. Rather it is simply a generalized guide to the approach used by the process to move from chaos (on the left) to an ordered view of the unified Universe (on the right). It illustrates the generalized three parts of the patent filed by the SolREI company.

Those versed in enterprise level business process re-engineering efforts know that any generalized process flow generally has decision checkpoints in order to assess metrics and decide whether or not to move on to the next step.

Suggested Skills

Understanding this chart requires skills in:

– Epistemology
– Quality Management System (QMS) standards
– Six Sigma
– Science Methodologies
– History
– Recognizing the Langer Epistemology Error (LEE) {and the implications thereof}
– Statistical Analysis, especially Bayesian Statistics
– and others.

Process Phase Steps

There are three basic phases, parts, or areas of any investigative effort associated with Elegant Reasonism:

P1 Recognition

Einstein famously said: “If you cannot explain something simply enough, then you do not understand it well enough.” Elegant Reasonism is exceedingly simple, but it is not easy. Many people confuse ‘simple’ with ‘easy’. The reason Elegant Reasonism is hard for many people has more to do with their own individual paradigms than it does with the actual intellectual property. Another famous quote by Einstein is that “We cannot solve problems using the same thinking we used when we created them.”

What Elegant Reasonism brings to civilization is a methodology and process associated with a technology based framework and work flow that recognizes challenges and problems, then illuminates them across that framework where subsequent analysis can be applied consistent with the actual real unified Universe.

P2 Illumination

Once the basic issues are recognized, we need to integrate what it is we think we know into the available tools according to international standards and Elegant Reasonism rules. Part of these standard based rules involve something any enterprise consultant or systems engineer will recognize as part of a systems review and it is ‘Root Cause Analysis‘. Essentially one asks a minimum of five times why something is true where at each question we probe deeper into causal issues. We almost never take the superficial reason we think something is true. We always dig deeper, usually until we reach known unknowns or unknown unknowns. Even then we probe to see if we can comprehend the actual real situation.

Populating Translation Matrices while simultaneously conducting the effort to such standards is a wondrous experience for open minded scientists seeking what must be. I’ve said many times that there is an ineffable quality to the experiences which must be personally felt. They most assuredly will be tacit and palpable. This effort produces a body of work that is enabled so that others are empowered to mode shift paradigms of interest across the plurality of encapsulated models employed.

P3 Holistic Analysis

As powerful as the illumination step is, those experiences are only amplified during the analysis phase because holistic insights are illustrated by illuminating the real issues. Investigators will discover that previously held why’s become what’s. Newton’s laws are a great example. If we ask why Newton’s laws are true using M1 thinking we might answer F=ma. When we ask the same question using M5 thinking we find that it is M5’s intrinsic definition that is the reason they are true and that formula only describes what happens, not why it happens.

Independent Thinking

No one needs advanced degrees to comprehend Elegant Reasonism. What you do need is your own individual ability to comprehend what you encounter. That means an honest assessment of your own belief system relative and respective to the new insights. It also means a real ability to conduct your own paradigm shifts within your own belief system as a function of that ‘internal systems review’ (e.g. personal systems review). The skill necessary to “stay present” in such engagements and not be swayed by emotion is exceedingly helpful. Elegant Reasonism, from a process point of view, is a “process of processes” that produced ever refined Treatise in context of the actual real unified Universe. When we say that, inevitably everyone looks around for “the expert” in these matters. News flash, this has never been done before. There are no experts anywhere. You ARE the expert. Why are ‘you’ the expert? Simple, you exist, you know you exist, and that you know you know you exist matters.

The skills needed to independently assess Elegant Reasonism are common place but employed in a manner requiring deep reflection. Simplistically what Elegant Reasonism does is ask “Why” questions consistent with ISO 9001 QMS standards and traditional problem solving methods to determine ‘root cause’. Accomplishing this does not require post graduate degrees. Such degrees can be exceedingly powerful when wielding the holistic asset that is Elegant Reasonism but they are not required for everyday use.

You need to know you can do this. You are the expert, if for no other reason than you exist. You need to THINK as you encounter these concepts.

Critical Thinking

While critical thinking is something used by many professionals in many areas Elegant Reasonism brings a new twist to its application. That twist is the employment of a plurality of interpretive models of the Universe and the foundational core elements comprising them in a coherent framework juxtaposed against a set of investigative paradigms (of interest or of nature) and then holistically layered against analytics to produce a Treatise with affinity for the real unified Universe.

Critical Thinking aides in all areas of the process that is Elegant Reasonism, but it is especially helpful in the recognition phase of the process. The old euphemism “you can’t fix it if you don’t know its broken” adage could not be more true here. Critical Thinking helps recognize incongruities, logic artifacts, LEEs, and to properly position historical constructs and the abstracts which comprise them.

Quality Thinking

ISO 9001 QMS standards are processes and metrics that assure we “walk our talk”. They seeks to minimize defects in all types of processes, including Elegant Reasonism. What changes here is that Elegant Reasonism employs a plurality of “contextual changes” in how reality is perceived. We then take a given set of paradigms of interest and illuminate how each of those relative and respective interpretive models manifest each particular paradigm. We then “mode shift” those paradigms interpretive model to interpretive model, demonstrating the contextual changes as we go. We then take that holistic set and layer it against some pretty powerful analytical tools. Once all of that is accomplished we step back and perform an analytical assessment of the entire effort in order to develop a Treatise based on insights developed by that effort. M5 was developed using this process.

Why are Elegant Reasonism quality metrics more powerful than traditional metrics? Distilled to a single word, the answer to that question is “Context”. When we realize the implications of LEE, we must also realize the power of “encapsulating” the interpretive models we employ. “Interpretive models” must be ‘declared’, in advance, and once so declared, they cannot be allowed to change for QMS reasons. Enumerated models can be iterated, with each subsequent iteration carrying an iterative identification. (Ultimately the SolREI company believes all of this needs to be managed by international committees acting as an ISO body.) The point here is that this gives civilization codified interpretive models that can be referenced in cogent communications such that everyone, everywhere, knows exactly which model generated the results in question or under discussion. Because there is a single master definition renders these issues explicit.

Why is all this necessary? The short answer is that interpretive models establish “context” for everything else discussed. All other concepts are systemically made manifest by the fundamental definition of the foundational aspects of such models. What Elegant Reasonism accomplishes is that it employs a plurality of such models, each of which establishes a unique perspective and context. For example when we use the phrase “does the mathematics work?” what we are really asking is “does the contextual implementation of the mathematical equations agree with the context of the established interpretive model”. In the case of all of the mathematics generally accepted today, for M1, the answer is absolutely yes it does. However, that is not the point. The point is “Does M1 unify physics?” and the answer to that is a resounding “No, it does not, nor will it ever.” Elegant Reasonism can illuminate all the reasons that is true and illustrate the path that does lead to ‘truth derived from the real unified Universe’. The actual real Universe is in fact unified whether or not the manner in which we think about it is or not.

So when we employ concepts like “Six Sigma” to our quality thinking and concept development, we really need to be asking ourselves what it is we are measuring. Are we measuring affinity to M1’s context or are we measuring affinity with the real unified Universe. If your thinking is immersed in M1 then you are inside a logic trap of epic proportions and everything you worked for is tied to the context of a logically correct model that will never unify physics. If your Six Sigma calculations are however tied to Elegant Reasonism then the opposite is true and your findings are tied to the affinity with the actual real unified Universe. The better our resolution of that unified Universe is, by employing Elegant Reasonism, the more relevant our Six Sigma calculations will be. That is we will have higher quality in our thinking.

Systems Thinking

All interpretive models commonly employ “foundational abstractions” and ‘constructs’ as they are made manifest in context of their relative and respective frameworks and rules. Exactly because such abstractions are systemic to every real object the model manifests these ‘systemic relationships’ can be thought of as ‘systems’ or ‘systems of systems’, and in that context the practices, processes, and profession of Systems Engineering represents a vital skill base.

Taking LEE in to account it is important that readers begin to reflectively consider (their own) individual paradigm shifts required in order to comprehend the issues holistically illuminated by Elegant Reasonism. This is especially true in context of the logical nature of M1, M2, and M3, as well as M5.

Traditionally Systems Engineers work with anthropogenic systems. Ironically, there have been many efforts over the years to assert that all sorts of natural systems also have great affinity with Systems Engineering because they are ‘systems’ or ‘systems of systems’. It is ironic because M5 proves those other cases and provides a ‘skill expansion’ opportunity for the profession. This in no way diminishes traditional studies into anthropogenic systems, rather it provides the foundation for opportunity in studying natural systems via Elegant Reasonism. Elegant Reasonism requires at least one interpretive model within the set employed to close to unification. At the moment the only model in existence meeting that requirement is M5 and in that model “everything real can be construed to be a system or a system of systems.”

In M5, everything real is a system or a system of systems.

Civilization has largely committed the Langer Epistemology Error (LEE). If there was a mistake made, that was it. Elegant Reasonism holds the keys to the proverbial kingdom and will allow you to take off the shackles constraining your thinking. It will illuminate “logical views of physical systems”. It will align your views with the actual real unified Universe and it will do it powerfully so. Systems Engineers versed in wielding such information science tools are already a step ahead of everyone else in this regard.

Elegant Reasonism as an Epistemology

Elegant Reasonism ‘epistemology’ is discussed elsewhere in more detail from the point of view of that topic as a matter of philosophy. The point here is that once an individual holistically comprehends Elegant Reasonism it will reshape their thinking and likely in unexpected manners. You will recognize circumstances you did not recognize before. You will see relationships you never knew existed. You will ask questions no one, anywhere, ever, fathomed. In these moments you will personally experience the tacit, palpable, power that is Elegant Reasonism.

Why is a net new epistemology required? The answer to that question is that the traditional epistemologies are intrinsically tied to perceptions created by human physiology and those too often lead to commission of LEE. That’s how we wound up building civilization ensnared within the logic trap of M1.

Why are these concepts so critical? They are critical because they change our perception of what constitutes “evidence”. I can think of a hundred examples where this single point has devastating consequences from billions in expenditures in R&D to Legal trials covering contracts, rights, and circumstances. If someone is convicted of a crime based on thinking immersed in M1 is that person still guilty in context of M5 thinking? I don’t know. A systems review would have to be conducted. The outcome would probably be the same because the logical circumstances are the same. Simplistic circumstances will likely not change exactly because the logical circumstances don’t change with mode shifted points of view. However, if the circumstances are tied deeply within M1 thinking and they do change when mode shifted into M5 then we have a different issue and that situation and case needs revisiting through comprehensive systems review.

Elegant Reasonism intrinsically employs Bayesian Statistics in its analytical capacity. This means that it is intrinsically capable of analyzing belief systems through the mode shifting process. Pattern recognition is similarly handled in the mode shifting process. All of these various circumstances, factors, parameters, variables, etc. are all taken into account to produce the holistic Treatise.